Wednesday, May 22, 2019

QQC 2

Quote: "He defines rhetoric as the "art of speaking well," punning on well to mean both effectively and virtuously. Oratory that does not move its hearer toward the good is not "rhetoric," by Quintilian's definition. Natural ability and learning contribute equally to rhetorical skill (a departure from the views of Isocrates and Cicero, who gave natural ability primacy). Mastery of rhetoric should be considered a "virtue" because it entails intimate knowledge of the good." (Quintilian, 295)

 Question: Do you agree with Quintilian's definition of rhetoric? What are some ideas that could be included in his argument to make it a bit stronger? If you do or don't resonate with Quintilian's definition of rhetoric explain why or why not.

3 comments:

  1. I do agree with his thinking that rhetoric is the art of speaking well and that its intent should be to move the audience towards the "good". A critique of his theory that I have is that he has this set of rules, outlined in his books, detailing exact rules that lead one to be the best rhetorician. I believe that one could still achieve the end goal but go through different means. His ideas serve as a great example (or form in Plato's terms) and should be something to strive for, but I would allow more lenience in how one gets there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with half of his definition. I do not think that rhetoric should necessarily automatically have something to do with virtue. Why must rhetoric always be good or push someone towards good? It doesn't make sense not to analyze the rhetoric from people that have used it in a bad way and this definition would disregard all those forms of rhetoric that are used in a malicious way. Rhetoric however does have to do with the art of speaking well

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do agree with his definition, and with what Devyn said in the previous comment about moving the audience toward the "good". Although he does set rules for rhetoric, I think that rules can be good to an extent. Without some kind of line of definition, the actual meaning and function can become hazy and unclear.

    ReplyDelete